Conceptual Framework of COST Action E19 „National Forest Programmes in a European Context“

I N S T I T U T E O F F O R E S T S E C T O R P O L I C Y A N D E C O N O M I C S

Peter GlückUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life

Sciences, Vienna

Final COST E19 Seminar in Vienna, 15-16 September 2003

Conceptual Framework of COST Action E19 „National Forest Programmes in a European

Context“


- Work programme- Handling of the analytical challenges- Working procedures - Integration of propositions- Propositions on external factors

Contents


Work programme

Main objective of COST E19– To provide policy makers in Europe with improved means for the

formulation and implementation of NFPs for ensuring SFM

Tasks of WG1– To interpret the basic elements and institutional/procedural

requirements of NFPs

– To assess the effects of these elements/requirements to NFPs

Tasks of WG2– To assess supporting/impeding factors of substantive NFPs

– To evaluate the significance of NFPs in comparison to other policy means


Analytical challenges

a) Objective of SFM b) Concept of NFPsc) Interpretation of basic elementsd) Institutional/procedural requirements of substantive NFPse) Supportive/impeding factors of substantive NFPsf) Significance of NFPs in comparison to other policy means


a) Objective of SFM

Problem– Notion of SFM is not an inter-subjectively assessable objective, it is

instead a model– Outcome depends on participating actors and the context

Solution– Lack of operational definition of SFM was not filled by value

judgements of participating researchers– Strict consideration of the borderline between positive science and

politics – Operational definition of SFM was left to politicians


b) Concept of NFPs

Problem– Though supported by the international forest policy dialogue there was

no clear idea about the content and impacts of NFPs– To ensure SFM and apply a series of basic elements/principles– New means of policy planning

Main question: How to distinguish a substantive NFP striving for policy change in SFM from a symbolic NFP which tries to maintain

the status quo?


b) Concept of NFPs

SolutionAssessment of substantive NFPs depends on the stage of the policy cycle:

- Policy formulation stage: Basic elements (high/low degree of participation,

intersectoral co-ordination etc.)

- Policy output stage: Basic elements Policy output comprising (i) policy targets and (ii) policy instruments

- Policy outcome stage: Effective achievement of targets


partic ipation

in tersec to ralcoordination

itera tive ,adaptiveapproach

co llabora tion

NF P

(existing)financia l

incentives

(exist ing)legal

regulations

(ex is ting)po liticalculture (existing)

institu tiona laspects

(existing)land tenure

otherpolicymean

otherpolicymean

supportive &im peding factors

po licym eans

policy output(leve l, chan ge )

policy prog ra m me sC& I o f S FMprocedural andinstitu tional aspects

policy output

policy p rogra m m esC &I of SFMpro cedural an dinstitutio na l as pe cts

policy output

policy p rogra m me sC& I o f S FMproce du ra l an din stitu tion al a spects

im plem en ta tio n im plem en tat ion im plem e nta tion

feedback

regarding process

regarding output

…

evaluation of the significance of NF P

s in com

parison to other policy means …policy outcome

SF Mpolicy outcom e

S FMpolicy outcome

S FM

regarding outcom

e


c) Interpretation of basic elements

Problem– FAO (1996) and IPF/IFF (1995-2001) enumerate a number of basic

elements/principles– Which are the most decisive ones?

SolutionBased on EFI Seminar in Freiburg 1998) and MCPFE Workshop in Tulln (1999) 4 “conceptual essentials” were selected:

– Participatory mechanisms– Collaborative approaches– Intersectoral approaches– Procedural approaches (iterative, adaptive and learning processes)


d) Institutional/procedural requirements of substantive NFPs

ProblemSubstantive NFPs depend on institutional (e.g., political culture, legislation) and procedural requirements (e.g., voting rules, mandate of participating actors)

Solution– Explanation of 4 essentials (dependent variables) by

institutional/procedural influence factors employing promising theories and concepts as well as existing experiences

– In addition, propositions about influence of institutional/procedural aspects on policy output and policy outcomes


e) Supportive/impeding factors of substantive NFPs

ProblemThe formulation and implementation of NFPs may be supported or impeded by:

– Internal factors (e.g., characteristics of participants, characteristics of the process)

– External factors: ● contollable factors (e.g., legal regulations, policy constraints) ● uncontrollable factors (e.g., political culture, ownership structure)

Impact much depends on the definition of SFM and the context of basic elements


e) Supportive/impeding factors of substantive NFPs

Solution“External” factor is any factor that is not itself a procedural element of a NFP and is part of the context of developing the NFP.WG2 agreed on the following list of supportive/impeding external factors:

– Political culture and social context– Legal aspects– Financial framework and incentives– Advocacy coalitions– Institutional aspects– Multi-level governance– Land tenure

Output: Propositions that a supporting (impeding) factor contributes positively (negatively) to high degrees of basic elements.


f) Significance of NFPs in comparison to other policy means

ProblemNew instruments for ensuring SFM at the– Global level: Global Forest Convention– National level: NFP– Management unit level: Forest CertificationWhat is the difference between an NFP and existing policy means?

SolutionNovelty of NFPs:– Enlarged definition of SFM– New mode of governance (networking, co-ordination, includes all

policy means)– Communication and trust among the actors– Participants agree on specific rules, norms and values– NFP is no end in itself, but an open-ended iterative process


Working procedures

Both WGs elaborated propositions with regard to the formulation and implementation of NFPs based on

– Theory-oriented research propositions– Experience reports

2 types of products for:– Political community: decision support by means of propositions– Scientific community: bold hypotheses for further scrutiny

Interdependencies of both WGs:– Close collaboration between WGs 1&2– Elaboration of background papers on basic elements in support of

WG2


Integration of propositions

As both WGs were overlapping the editorial committee described the conceptual essentials (WG1) and the external supportive/impeding factors of NFPs (WG2) by means of:

– General characteristics ● can be seen as “ingredients” of recipes ● dose of the ingredients determines the “taste”: success or failure– Detailed propositions ● relevance for policy makers ● control ability by policy actors ● empirical evidence ● theoretical value ● boldness


General characteristics of NFPs and their environment

- Characteristics of participants (boundaries, number, status, mandate, qualification, actors’ expectations)

- Characteristics of external factors (political culture, leadership tradition, sector tradition, property rights tradition, ownership structure, regional differentiation, decentralisation, legislative tradition, regulatory flexibility, international commitments)

- Characteristics of the process (relevance and awareness, resources, rules, facilitation, input, information, communication, stage of the policy process, institutionalisation, differentiation, international co-ordination,

- Content characteristics (“SMARTness”, expected output, mix of policy instruments)


External factors of NFPs

Political culture1. If the social and political culture of the country secures

rights of participation, conflict resolution and adaptiveness, then it is more likely that the NFP process will succeed.

2. A government’s anticipatory and active approach to problem solving and its tendency to make decisions through achieving agreement between interested parties is a supporting factor for NFPs.

3. Close co-operation between government and a selected number of employers’ and employees’ interest groups is an impeding factor of participation, co-ordination and conflict resolution capacities in NFP processes with regard to involving actors outside such a narrow policy network.

Controllability


External factors of NFPsLeadership tradition

4. If, as it is most frequently found, the leadership for steering the NFP process is the forest administration and participation is focused on the traditional clientele (forestry and forest industry), then this impedes inter-sectoral co-ordination in an NFP process. ()

5. If the political culture of a country is such as to deliver government driven forest programmes, then this likely leads to moderate or low participation, low inter-sectoral co-ordination and low conflict resolution capacities as well as to the predominance of “command and control” policy instruments.

Sector tradition6. The more rigid the distribution between formal authorities

(e.g. ministries, departments), the less likely it is that inter-sectoral co-ordination will occur.

Controllability



Property rights tradition7. Common property regimes on forests have much in

common with an NFP process. Thus, members of forest common property regimes may contribute positively to an NFP process.

Ownership structure8. A diversity of forest property regimes reflecting different

interests calls for more co-ordination and more participation in an NFP process.

9. The more private forest ownership is fragmented, the less is the owners’ interest in SFM and the less likely they will participate in an NFP process.

Controllability



Regional differentiation10. Forest owners' participation in NFP processes is more

difficult if there is a significant regional differentiation of land tenure regimes that entails a deficit with regard to the unified representation of the forest owners at the national level.

Decentralisation11. If a number of policy areas that directly or indirectly

relate to forests or forestry are under the responsibility of decentralised administrations (such as regional planning, agriculture, nature conservation and hunting), then this supports the development of sub-national forest programme processes.

Controllability



Legislative tradition12. A legally binding framework of an NFP may support

continuing, long term, iterative and adaptive planning processes independent from changes in the government.

Regulatory flexibility13. If the implementation of the conceptual essentials of an

NFP and its outputs (policy targets and instruments) call for fundamental changes in legal regulations, then it is likely that a lengthy and difficult process will evolve.

International commitments14. If a country has political commitments in the international

forest policy dialogue, then this is likely to trigger an NFP process.

Controllability


Thanks for your attention

(if you have listened to me)

Documents

Conceptual Framework of COST Action E19 „National Forest Programmes in a European Context“